If the Food and Drug Administration gets its way, your trip to the grocery store could get a tad pricier.

Supermarket owners argue a pending federal food-labeling rule that stems from the new health care law would overburden thousands of grocers and convenience store owners — to the tune of $1 billion in the first year alone. […]

The rule stems from an ObamaCare mandate that restaurants provide nutrition information on menus. Most in the restaurant industry were supportive of the idea, but when the FDA decided to extend the provision to also affect thousands of supermarkets and convenience stores, the backlash was swift.

The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.

Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: “If you get it wrong, it’s a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines.”

“This is a federal regulation — in proposed stage right now — that stems from the health care law [ObamaCare] and basically says that supermarkets are going to have to label all kinds of foods.”

“If you don’t label it, supermarkets face thousands of dollars worth of fines and executives supermarkets could be put in federal jails.”

“You can go to jail if you don’t label the foods correctly under this federal regulation.”

“And this is a sweeping regulation that affects thousands of items in the supermarket.”

“Because of this we could see a number of items going away and I can guarantee you that shoppers are going to see higher prices at the register.”

“There’s not a single study out there which shows that labeling reduces obesity rates.”

“We’ve estimated that it would be $1 billion dollars worth of burden in the first year alone.”

“This is a huge burden. Before we sell an item — like this apple pie — we have to send it to a laboratory for analysis, we have to compile eight different records on the item, we have to put that sign up there which says 300 calories.”

“We have to invest a lot of money to do this and this is money that we’re not investing in creating jobs or developing our stores and — savings that we can’t pass on to consumers.”

OBAMA ISSUES MORE PROHIBITIONS…FOR YOU
The Obamas don’t want your kids to eat junk food or drink sodas, because they know better than you what’s best for your children.

The Hill has the story of Obama’s proposed ban on school snacks:

The Obama administration proposed regulations Friday that would prohibit U.S. schools from selling unhealthy snacks.

The 160-page regulation from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would enact nutrition standards for “competitive” foods not included in the official school meal.

In practice, the proposed rules would replace traditional potato chips with baked versions and candy with granola. Regular soda is out, though high-schoolers may have access to diet versions. […]

The rules are a product of the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which also overhauled the nutritional make-up of regular school meals. They would apply to any school, public or private, that participates in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. […]

All snacks must also meet a range of calorie and nutrition requirements, such as limits on sodium, total sugar and calories from fat, with few exceptions.

The rules states that all schools may sell water, low-fat and fat-free milks and milk alternatives and 100-percent fruit and vegetable juices, with portion sizes varying by student age.

But don’t worry – King Obama will allow you to keep these God-given freedoms:

High schools will also be permitted to sell carbonated beverages, as long as they contain five calories or less per serving.

Officials noted that the proposed rules will not apply to birthday treats, snacks provided during after-school activities, or student-brought foods.

OBAMA ERA: DON’T WATERBOARD YOUR ENEMIES; OK TO KILL YOUR CITIZENS.
NBC revealed yesterday a “newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.” The Obama Administration won’t need evidence just an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government to make the determination that “targeted American has been ‘recently’ involved in ‘activities’ posing a threat of a violent attack,” NBC reports.

As if that wasn’t odd enough, liberal media outlets are also reporting this. (See sources below)

WASHINGTON — Obama administration lawyers have asserted that it would be lawful to kill a United States citizen if “an informed, high-level official” of the government decided that the target was a ranking figure in Al Qaeda who posed “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if his capture was not feasible, according to a 16-page document made public on Monday.

The unsigned and undated Justice Department “white paper,” obtained by NBC News, is the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view regarding the Obama legal team’s views about the lawfulness of killing, without a trial, an American citizen who executive branch officials decide is an operational leader of Al Qaeda or one of its allies.

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens…[A]t the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.” […]

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly.